Jump to content

bradfuller1959

Members
  • Content Count

    9
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About bradfuller1959

  • Rank
    Newbie

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    aol ID
  • MSN
    msn ID
  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0
  • Yahoo
    yahoo id

Profile Information

  • Location
    australia
  • Interests
    interests
  1. bradfuller1959

    New Feature: Greylisting *UPDATED*

    hi - I'm just trialling the greylisting feature and it seems a handy tool. just wondering what the "# Blocked" column is denotiong? I was assuming it represented the number of rejected/greylisted emails "from" that address so far? But I think that's a mistake on my part... if the same message was resent from the same user that would be the trigger to "pass it on" wouldn't it... it's just that I got sent a valid email overnight that got stuck in the greylist .. Once I manually "allowed" it I got the next "resent email" fine.... any comments? :^) cheers brad
  2. >fixed for you thanks >You've pretty much defined the answer ... whitelisting is doing what you've asked it to do, bypass all the >filtering actions. yeah I thought as much.. just hoping there was a way to over ride whitelist for extremely spammy stuff >And I'll ask .. have you checked the Announcements section and/or the Forum FAQ as far as using >your e-mail address for a 'name' in here? my apologies... I can't see how to edit that in "my controls"? If I've stuffed that up please delete my forum account and I'll register again paying more attention to the text users see as "my name"
  3. apologies for the typo in the "title".... can't seem to edit that... I think I understand the general rule that mail from a "whitelisted" address is always passed on... but I'm getting a steady flow of spam "from" whitelisted addresses with very high scores from spam assassin. (IE where a spammer has used/guessed a "from" address I have whitelisted, or has used my address as the "from" address) EG http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z1501634654z2...ddfbe73dbea180z says: <snip> X-SpamCop-Checked: X-SpamCop-Disposition: Blocked SpamAssassin=36 X-SpamCop-Whitelisted: x so I still get the mail.. Is it possible to set a "max" threshold for spam assassin (say 30 ?) IE so that mail with scores "above" this will still be moved to held mail regardless of whitelist settings? If any of my genuine whitelisted correspondents can trigger that sort of spam assassin score in a "real" email it deserves to be blocked :^) I appreciate this may not be terchnically possible if the whitelist check is done before anything else, but the fact that the message includes the spamassassion "info" along with the "whitelist" info gives me hope that the two bits of data can be used together!! thanks for a great tool .. I haven't seen a virus email for 3 years and I know you catch about 150+ spam a day for me - so this is no big deal... just thought I'd ask... cheers brad
  4. Hi I've tried several times now to "add" my regular email addresses / redirection email serves as new mailhosts but I never get the "instructions" email. I'm unable to report new spam until configuration is complete. Can a spamcop tech person please advise how to complete mailhost addition in this case?
  5. Feedback as requested.. I submitted my 2 main email accounts/server for mailhost processing about 4 hours ago. Still no response from my mail servers or spamcop. I'm not game to report anymore spam until I know what's happening... Should I post my live email addresses here for you to checkout or is that askign for trouble :^) Maybe I stuffed up too.. I have one main email server (iimage.com.au) which redirects mail from a number of aliases / other domain names sorry to be a pain.. brad
  6. Hope it's just me, but for the past little while (hours not days) I've had nothing in my webmail inbox, and a quit "tail" of the server log showed a few of these... just me I hope but thought I'd post anyway Mar 4 20:43:26 debian sm-mta[8607]: i249h59B008598: to=<brad[at]iimage.com.au>, ctladdr=<mailtest[at]debian.iimage.com.au> (1050/1050), delay=00:00:00, xdelay=00:00:00, mailer=esmtp, pri=120315, relay=mx2.cesmail.net., dsn=4.0.0, stat=Deferred: Connection timed out with mx2.cesmail.net.
  7. bradfuller1959

    average reporting time blowout

    yeah I guess so... must just be my competitive nature peeking out.. I don't want to look slack about reporting spam (even to myself!!) I was just putting it out there... :^) Brad
  8. Hi - I was wondering if "held email" reporting delays could be excluded from the "average reporting time" for each user? I was very proud of my 2 to 3 hour reporting time for spam that slipped by SpamCop . . . but then I mass reported a pile of held mail, after reading that all spam should really be reported.... ... and now I'm (slowly) working my way back to single figure reporting delay!! I really want to contribute correctly to keeping spammers blacklisted but if I have to login to held mail several times a day to keep my reporting time down, I probably won't bother... Is it possible for spamcop not to include held mail reports in "reporting time", so that this figure really represents how promptly a user lets spamcop know about NEW spam.... Thanks all Brad
  9. Hi all - hope this is not off topic.. I notice over the last week that I'm getting up to a dozen or so spams a day through to the inbox, where up until now I'd have been lucky (so to speak) to see one or two a day. Is there a known issue with some new spam hosts / relays taking time to get blacklisted or is there another reason / suggestion as to why this might be happening? Just curious since until now the track record for filtering spam has been so good!! (you guys spoiled me :^) If I could also ask you more experienced users what the preferred action to take with help mail is? I get about 100 a day in the held mail and have long since stopped bothering to cull this folder for messages to "report as spam"... Do you prefer that all "held mail" that is spam be "reported" ? (IE is my lack of reporting a contributing factor to the problem above? !!!) Thanks for your time.. Brad
×